Abdullah Ahmed Ali v Secretary of State for Justice

Where communal religious worship in prison can occur only through the state’s positive intervention, the claim is ordinarily assessed under the state’s positive obligations under article 9(1), rather than as an interference requiring justification under article 9(2). The obligation is to take reasonable and appropriate measures and to strike a fair balance between the prisoner’s rights and competing community interests. Article 9 does not require perfect provision or worship on every possible occasion. An imperfect system may comply where it generally facilitates worship and failures arise for reasons beyond the state’s control. Article 9 creates no free-standing right to an individual risk assessment before access to another prison unit is considered.

The appellant, a Muslim prisoner held in the High Security Unit at HMP Belmarsh, brought a claim under sections 7 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 alleging breaches of article 9 of the ECHR. He complained that Jumuah, the Friday communal prayer, was unavailable on fourteen occasions between December 2015 and August 2016. A Jumuah service was generally arranged within the Unit, but the appellant sought permission to attend a service in the main prison when the Unit service could not proceed.

The County Court at Central London dismissed the claim. On appeal, the issues included whether the case concerned a positive obligation under article 9(1) or an interference under article 9(2), whether an individual risk assessment was required, and whether the respondent’s arrangements satisfied article 9.

1. Appeal dismissed. The County Court had correctly identified and applied the relevant legal framework.
2. The case concerned the facilitation of communal worship. Jumuah in prison could occur only through the respondent’s positive intervention. The appellant had no right or entitlement to leave the High Security Unit and attend worship in the main prison. The existence of a service there was therefore irrelevant. No prohibition engaging the article 9(2) requirement that a limitation be prescribed by law was established.
3. The applicable positive obligation was to take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure the appellant’s article 9(1) rights, while striking a fair balance between his freedom of worship and the rights and interests of the community. The state enjoys a margin of appreciation in determining the measures required. Article 9 is not breached merely because religious practice is facilitated in sub-optimal circumstances.
4. The trial judge was entitled to find that the respondent had a system which operated well overall, although imperfect. The appellant had been able to attend Jumuah on 89% of occasions while in the Unit. The failures resulted from matters including insufficient numbers of prisoners or the Imam’s absence, and did not establish a breach where the service could not be offered for reasons beyond the respondent’s control.
5. There was no free-standing requirement under article 9(1) to conduct an individual risk assessment before permitting attendance at the main-prison service. Such an assessment would have been pointless on the findings, since authorisation would not have been granted.

The order dismissing the claim was upheld.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): appeal from the County Court at Central London dismissed on 12 November 2024.
• County Court at Central London: HHJ Baucher dismissed the claim on 1 September 2023 and ordered costs on the standard basis, subject to section 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.